IF YOU WERE TO ASK ME ABOUT “COMMUNICATION STUDIES”
Well, I certainly don’t need reminding that I’m a professional translator, and having pointed that out I certainly don’t need anyone to point out to me that concepts of “the art of communication”, however vague and even if they are nondescript, inevitably intertwine with those of the work I do for a living. But it’s not enough to simply state such a thing: after all, for all the indisputable truth of it, it’s just so easy to do. No – did you know that you can get degrees in “communication studies”? I mean, when I read such a term, I’m inclined to point out that you hardly need to go to university to learn Morse code, sign language or semaphore or whatever, and that begs the question of what relatively elusive knowledge and awareness such courses can be trusted to instil in those who take them… and the value of it all. By all means go ahead and elaborate unto me in glorious detail about how communication studies as you know it is a key thing in speech writing, teaching, whatever, and tell me what you’re convinced I’m missing. But this article merely covers my initial response to the hypothetical question of what I have to say about “communication studies”, however much (or little, depending on how you want to look at it) I could talk about such a subject off the bat. After all, as I said, I am a professional translator and as such a professional linguist and blah blah blah blah blah.
Now, in all candour, what really motivated me to write this article is my knowledge of the term “sotto voce”, which is Latin as you have probably already surmised; Google defines this as “(of singing or a spoken remark) in a quiet voice”. The thing is, I can remember the first time I came across this expression, which was years and years ago – and I knew in my heart that it was Latin even back then – but exactly what is this term used to designate in actual practice? Because it seems to me that it’s a label for comments which those who utter them pretend they don’t want overheard. Am I right? Here’s an example: when you watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep5meQkcCkg – I fully understand if you don’t play the Civilization games and you don’t get or relish these comedy skits by Kyle Sullivan and the rest of the Door Monster crew like I do, but if you look at when Queen Elizabeth says “Good start!” at 0:14, was it really no more than an offhand comment that just “leaked out” of her? Maybe she knowingly secretly hoped it would catch on and influence whatever conversation would follow (much as I understand that it is all scripted)? Is that so hard to believe? Of course, the word of the Door Monster crew on such a topic will always supplant anyone else’s, including mine, but, you know, say what you will.
I’m also guessing that some people would be more inclined to insist that a “sotto voce case” is more like a label for a situation where the person making the statement is angry and intends to be menacing while knowingly intending to convey that they are showing restraint – for now. Let them speak as freely as I do here.
If you consider the fact that there exists differing opinions on swearing (when it is and isn’t “OK”) and on situations where casual self-expression qualifies as rude or impudent for some reason, you really have to accept that communication studies isn’t simply learning how to “talk better” or in “new ways”. I mean: seriously, who could ever hope to explain the truth behind all misunderstandings that have taken place, or unexpected interpretations? Not me, to be honest.
Anyway, that said, I’m done. Bye.